In Reply to: RE: I have just read this and posted by Thorsten on March 17, 2014 at 09:31:01:
For me, zero means zero. My training is in mathematics and that starts out with the integers. :-) I would take a capitalized phrase as a trademark, as in "Coke Zero Soda." For this reason, I did not take exception to the phrase "Zero Jitter Mode". Here the term can easily be taken to be a name that reflects a design goal and it would be foolish for a purchaser to take this as a assertion that this goal was met. (But IANAL and nor familiar with the draconian U.K. advertising rules.)
The phrase that I take exception to is in fmak's original quote: "With this new and completely jitterless clock" Specifically, I take exception with the use of the word "completely" as this is physically not possible. "Totally eliminating jitter from the source" may be a bit of an exaggeration, but there is enough ambiguity in the phrase "from the source" to pass on this. Your white paper used the phrase, "zero source jitter" and this is also okay for the same reason.
I did a four year stint in the 1970's as the product manager for a line of computer data communications devices and got to write product requirements, user manuals, marketing brochures and white papers. I took great care in my selection of wording, so that my pants would never get more than slightly warm. :-)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- zero vs. Zero - Tony Lauck 10:30:12 03/17/14 (23)
- RE: zero vs. Zero - Frihed89 15:08:26 03/18/14 (1)
- RE: zero vs. Zero - Tony Lauck 16:44:00 03/18/14 (0)
- Coca Cola knows how to count! - E-Stat 11:36:04 03/17/14 (18)
- RE: Coca Cola knows how to count! - RGA 17:37:44 03/18/14 (16)
- RE: Coca Cola knows how to count! - E-Stat 18:05:17 03/18/14 (15)
- RE: Coca Cola knows how to count! - RGA 22:19:30 03/18/14 (14)
- Another concise RGA response! - E-Stat 05:44:30 03/19/14 (13)
- RE: Another concise RGA response! - RGA 22:11:04 03/19/14 (8)
- "FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener..." - E-Stat 06:04:39 03/20/14 (7)
- RE: "FDA finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener..." - RGA 22:08:44 03/20/14 (6)
- Not at all - E-Stat 07:33:37 03/21/14 (5)
- Start with this article - Tony Lauck 07:41:39 03/21/14 (4)
- RE: Start with this article - Crazy Dave 11:49:00 03/21/14 (0)
- Send your article to the FDA - E-Stat 08:06:15 03/21/14 (2)
- RE: Send your article to the FDA - Crazy Dave 12:01:54 03/21/14 (1)
- RE: Send your article to the FDA - Tony Lauck 18:21:06 03/21/14 (0)
- RE: Another concise RGA response! - Tony Lauck 07:08:45 03/19/14 (3)
- RE: Another concise RGA response! - E-Stat 07:16:47 03/19/14 (2)
- RE: Another concise RGA response! - Tony Lauck 07:27:28 03/19/14 (1)
- Ok - E-Stat 08:12:05 03/19/14 (0)
- RE: Coca Cola knows how to count! - Tony Lauck 11:47:25 03/17/14 (0)
- RE: zero vs. Zero - Thorsten 11:08:29 03/17/14 (1)
- RE: zero vs. Zero-typical - fmak 12:41:37 03/17/14 (0)